himself had given evidence, however, filing the copy of the driving license, stating that he employed Balwinder Singh as a driver on his truck and he had a driving licence that was genuine. In the crossexamination, the question that was confronted to him was that the original driving licence had not been produced but it was in the truck itself. He denied the suggestion that he was not holding any valid driving licence. In this case, although an attempt was made by the insurer to contend that neither the original issued nor the renewal was genuine, the Tribunal itself held that the renewal registers had not been produced and the Tribunal had one time stated that there was nothing in the licence to suggest that the same was obtained from some other authority and therefore, the entry if any regarding the renewal was supposed to be in the register brought by the Clerk. Quite consistently, it said in the next line that the licence was never renewed from the Licensing Authority Amritsar. These inconsistent findings notwithstanding, if we must examine the case from the point of view of the owner, there is clear evidence that he acted on the driving licence produced before him and he believed it to be genuine. While considering the issue of indemnity, it is always tested with reference to the alleged act of violation of terms of the policy by the insured. If the insured was not himself aware that it was a fake and he believed that it was genuine, that will afford sufficient protection for the owner to be fully indemnified, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 279 .
